The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1381  
Old 03-19-2021, 07:09 PM
Queen Ester's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moran View Post
She should have been left to keep her job, in theory, but in practice, the very character of the job would have brought headlines like "Prince Harry's wife preferred to the seasoned actress... insert name." Unfair but inevitable, due to the character of the job. Still, with Meghan being so adamant about keeping her voice, her American PR firm and so on, I can't see her as being forced into abandoning her profession. What would the RF had done, forbidden Harry from marrying her?


For some reason, she chose to stop working and she had a buyer's remorse. She wouldn't be the first one. I suppose she just underestimated the sheer boredom and predictability of the job.
I don't think that Meghan would get the roles though, she wouldn't want to settle for supporting characters and she is not that good an actress to carry a movie, then Harry would have to beg producers for the roles, how embarrassing that would be
__________________

  #1382  
Old 03-19-2021, 07:10 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,480
I dont think that acting is a job you can combine with a royal role...esp when there would certainly be complaints that she wasn't a good actress and only got roles because of who she was etc etc. But it seems odd that harry seems so horrified at the idea that "someone" said she should keep on acting. You'd think Meghan would be pleased if she had been given permission to keep on with her career.. if ti meant so much to her.
And I mean really, "they" said that she would not get security or any money to keep her? Who paid for her wardrobe and for her working expenses and so on during her 18 months as a Princess? Oh yes I think it was mainly Charles. Or maybe he only chipped in when Harry raised a fuss about having no money to keep his wife....
__________________

  #1383  
Old 03-19-2021, 07:11 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,146
What do you mean by ‘public theatre’? The BBC drama department?

I can think of several scenarios where the fact that Meghan was married to Prince Harry could have caused problems. The tabloids would have been constantly after cast and crew members to see whether there were problems on set she worked on a TV show or play. If she was well-liked (as she was on Suits) they would have made something up anyway.


Some cast members in these shows don’t get on and if Meghan was close to one cast member and not another I can see the Sun or Fail getting into that and casting aspersions.


If Meghan went for a film role and didn’t get it the tabloids would follow it and be cock a hoop. If she did get it then there would be assertions that somehow it was undue influence due to who she was.


If she earned a big salary at any time that would be blazoned all over the media. In an ensemble cast, members who didn’t earn as much and could be resentful would be asked to comment.


If Meghan worked for a BBC production in-house the journalists would be scraping around there for gossip. God forbid if she became friendly with a male actor, as she was with a couple in the cast of Suits. If they were seen having lunch together, even with others, the fat would be in the fire, and there would be speculation about her and Harry’s relationship.
  #1384  
Old 03-19-2021, 07:12 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7 View Post
She could have stopped acting and gone to working with public theatre in the UK for example. But It was her who was desperate to give up her career and get out giving her worthy speeches.
Speaking of UK theatre, Ruthie Henshall, a renowned British musical theatre actress who once dated Prince Edward mentioned that royal life would not suit her. She was aware that had stayed or married Edward, she would not continue to have a musical career.
BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Henshall talks of love for prince

There was also the infamous clip of Ruthie Henshall detailing her experience with the Royal Family at Balmoral when she was at I'm a celebrity, get me out of here. She also did an interview with Lorraine after she left the "jungle/castle" in Wales.



I understand that being an actress singing/dancing/acting on stage is different from being a backstage behind the scene producers/runners
  #1385  
Old 03-19-2021, 07:19 PM
Kellydofc's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Out in the country, United States
Posts: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
The situation of an heir to the Throne with adult children who obviously have to be housed somewhere and are full time royals had never happened before in British history.
This is not true. When Queen Victoria died in 1901 and her son Edward VII ascended to the throne he was 60 years old, his children, meaning Victoria's grandchildren were Prince Albert Victor (b. 1864 d 1892 age 28 at death), George V (b. 1865 age 36 in 1901), Princess Louise, (b. 1867 age 34 in 1901), Princess Victoria (b. 1868 age 33 in 1901), Princess Maud (b. 1869 age 32 in 1901).

I also want to point out that the future George the V had 3 children by the time Victoria passed away, a daughter and 2 sons.

Please note, I am only talking about Edward VII's children. Victoria's other children had NUMEROUS other children of their own. She had grandchildren and great-grandchildren all over Europe so this has happened before.

The difference is it was before WWI and many of the monarchies of the world were deposed from their thrones so things could be done slightly differently then.
  #1386  
Old 03-19-2021, 07:27 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellydofc View Post
This is not true. When Queen Victoria died in 1901 and her son Edward VII ascended to the throne he was 60 years old, his children, meaning Victoria's grandchildren were Prince Albert Victor (b. 1864 d 1892 age 28 at death), George V (b. 1865 age 36 in 1901), Princess Louise, (b. 1867 age 34 in 1901), Princess Victoria (b. 1868 age 33 in 1901), Princess Maud (b. 1869 age 32 in 1901).

I also want to point out that the future George the V had 3 children by the time Victoria passed away, a daughter and 2 sons.

Please note, I am only talking about Edward VII's children. Victoria's other children had NUMEROUS other children of their own. She had grandchildren and great-grandchildren all over Europe so this has happened before.

The difference is it was before WWI and many of the monarchies of the world were deposed from their thrones so things could be done slightly differently then.
Indeed the future George VI was named Albert to pacify his Great grandmother for having the sad audacity to be born on the anniversary on his great grandfather Prince Albert's death.

Incidentally he was born at York Cottage on the Sandringham Estate. It was given as a wedding present to his parents. It's bigger than Frogmore Cottage but not very grand at all and is now the estate offices and has flats for estate employees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York_Cottage
  #1387  
Old 03-19-2021, 07:48 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,146
I know all about King Edward VII and his children and Queen Victoria’s. I stated very carefully in my post ‘FULL TIME royals’ when referring to the heir to the British throne and his adult children.

The future George V when Duke of York, was not performing royal duties fulltime as the Prince of Wales’s son and second in line heir to the throne. His official biographer later referred to him living at York Cottage at Sandringham and spending the vast majority of his time shooting birds and tending to his stamp collection until his grandmother died, and even later.


Had he not become heir due to his older brother’s death, he would have continued his naval career. If he had married in those circumstances he would have undoubtedly received a home either on a royal estate or with the help of his father. As it was, he was granted York Cottage (even though he was not a royal who performed fulltime duties.)


George’s sisters certainly weren’t fulltime royal workers. Louise spent much of her time in Scotland with her family. Maud was in Denmark, then Norway, and Victoria was more or less the single daughter at home then hand maiden to her mother.


Of course George and his wife May became more active when Prince and Princess of Wales, and they, and George’s sisters did do a certain number of royal duties and some charity work when Queen Victoria was on the throne but certainly were not regarded as full time royals in the way senior royals are now, performing hundreds of engagements a year. It was not expected of them.


The emphasis began to change after WW1. William and Harry were the first sons of any Prince of Wales who were expected to become full time royals while the monarch who was their grandparent was still alive. That was what I was referring to.
  #1388  
Old 03-19-2021, 08:08 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,525
Weren't there quite a few people who said when H&M started dating the Palace tried to be a supportive as possible by making it clear they would try to work out a way, if desired, for Meghan to still be able to act. I don't think there was anything more to these reports other than the RF and staff trying to be as supportive as possible, likely based on the fact Harry's other serious GFs had all baulked at the thought of having to give up their future careers if joining the RF.

Of course, as Meghan decided to give up her acting we never got to see the end result of any possible strategy to allow Meghan to keep acting. I think it would have been hugely difficult if Harry was a full time working royal in the traditional sense but maybe there were also bigger discussions being had about what exact role H&M would have.
  #1389  
Old 03-19-2021, 08:49 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Meghan however did not ‘get to live in a Palace’, she and Harry were given former staff accommodation, and I don’t believe that any Royal from any dynasty living in the 21st century would wish to live as the Habsburgs or Romanovs did in the 1850s and ‘60s. So Meghan being an American actress is irrelevant.
You obviously find the situation with Frogmore Cottage very upsetting, the couple themselves didn't appear to have a problem with it.
Or is there something the rest of us dont know yet.
  #1390  
Old 03-19-2021, 09:22 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: wherever the wind takes me, United States
Posts: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erin9 View Post
Meghan wasn’t really trying to shed a light on mental illness IMO. The point was to get sympathy and throw the monarchy under the bus. It’s one of the reasons I was annoyed that the White House commented on it.

I think Meghan and Harry are a walking advertisement for what you said about leaving the situation: that it doesn’t mean mental issues are magically cured. This interview, their friend being authorized to talk, the emails now leaking don’t happen when you’ve moved on and are in a good place. This is nasty and vindictive.
Is it any less nasty and vindictive as the BRF has been toward her by not correcting the false narrative that was put forth by the British press...

I understand many here are royalists...but as an American woman, I do not understand the need to vilify Meghan.
__________________





When you said we'd all be friends in the end I hope you find what you need
I hope you'll find what you need But can I have my heart back 'cause it's starting to b l e e d


Oh, oh, oh, you were my s t a r now
Oh, oh, oh, you're my favorite s c a r


  #1391  
Old 03-19-2021, 09:28 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 168
They didn't just stick them in an empty staff apartment. IIRC, Frogmore had been divided into four or five different apartments for staff, and they were combined into one good-sized house when H&M moved in. That's why the renovations were so expensive - lots of walls being knocked out. I don't know enough about the history of any of the palaces to say for sure, but I'd be surprised if the rooms currently used for staff have always been for staff rather than royals, and vice versa. They're just too old for quarters to never have been renovated and reshuffled.
  #1392  
Old 03-19-2021, 09:34 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoySetsFire View Post
Is it any less nasty and vindictive as the BRF has been toward her by not correcting the false narrative that was put forth by the British press....

I understand many here are royalists...but as an American woman, I do not understand the need to vilify Meghan.
In American terms what you suggest actually would be akin to the President of the United States censoring or correcting everything he didn't like that came out that put one of his/her family members in a bad light. Or... forcing a member of Congress to resign his position because of rumors and allegations. Ain't gonna happen in this reality.

It's not about being a monarchist, a royalist, a republican or a vegetarian. It's about what one can and what one cannot do. Simple.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #1393  
Old 03-19-2021, 09:35 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoySetsFire View Post
Is it any less nasty and vindictive as the BRF has been toward her by not correcting the false narrative that was put forth by the British press...

I understand many here are royalists...but as an American woman, I do not understand the need to vilify Meghan.
Setting aside the fact that many of those "false narratives" have ended up being true, what Meghan and Harry are doing is still worse. If they could prove with 100% certainty that this "false narrative" was deliberately created by family members talking to the press, then it would be comparable, but they haven't claimed that - and they haven't been shy about making outrageous claims, so it seems they don't believe that's happening. So what we're left with is the press making stuff up, and the royals ignoring it entirely. That's very, very different from Meghan (and perhaps Harry) deliberately creating negative stories about the rest of the family because they're mad at the rest of the family for ignoring the press.

And maybe I missed it, but when was it proven that Andrew did any of those things? The appropriate place to sort out anyone's responsibility, or lack thereof, for criminal misconduct is in the court system, not in the media or in the Queen's drawing room.
  #1394  
Old 03-19-2021, 09:45 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: N/A, Bulgaria
Posts: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoySetsFire View Post
Is it any less nasty and vindictive as the BRF has been toward her by not correcting the false narrative that was put forth by the British press...

I understand many here are royalists...but as an American woman, I do not understand the need to vilify Meghan.
Which false narratives? Because a good deal of them turned out to be true. And the BRF never corrects any narratives about themselves. They didn't do it for Camilla, Sarah, Catherine, they didn't do it when the press was after the Queen's *teenaged* royal granddaughters, targeting them as leechers and scroungers. But Meghan is so much more special? Why? I don't get it.

Why do you think we're vilifying Meghan here? We didn't make her say untruths and twist things on TV. We didn't make her staff complain. Is this because we think that other people should be given the chance to share "their truth" as well? Because this isn't a right reserved just for Harry and Meghan.
  #1395  
Old 03-19-2021, 10:01 PM
Kellydofc's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Out in the country, United States
Posts: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
I know all about King Edward VII and his children and Queen Victoria’s. I stated very carefully in my post ‘FULL TIME royals’ when referring to the heir to the British throne and his adult children.

The future George V when Duke of York, was not performing royal duties fulltime as the Prince of Wales’s son and second in line heir to the throne. His official biographer later referred to him living at York Cottage at Sandringham and spending the vast majority of his time shooting birds and tending to his stamp collection until his grandmother died, and even later.


Had he not become heir due to his older brother’s death, he would have continued his naval career. If he had married in those circumstances he would have undoubtedly received a home either on a royal estate or with the help of his father. As it was, he was granted York Cottage (even though he was not a royal who performed fulltime duties.)


George’s sisters certainly weren’t fulltime royal workers. Louise spent much of her time in Scotland with her family. Maud was in Denmark, then Norway, and Victoria was more or less the single daughter at home then hand maiden to her mother.


Of course George and his wife May became more active when Prince and Princess of Wales, and they, and George’s sisters did do a certain number of royal duties and some charity work when Queen Victoria was on the throne but certainly were not regarded as full time royals in the way senior royals are now, performing hundreds of engagements a year. It was not expected of them.


The emphasis began to change after WW1. William and Harry were the first sons of any Prince of Wales who were expected to become full time royals while the monarch who was their grandparent was still alive. That was what I was referring to.
But they did need to be housed. So that issue did still exist. It's clear you don't like Frogmore and see the fact that this residence was given to H&M as some sort of slight even though it has been made clear that several residences were offered to H&M and they themselves chose FC. Clearly you wouldn't have chosen it but they did. Perhaps they didn't see it as a slight. And if they had waited longer than 2 years they would have gotten a country estate.

Monarchies aren't equal. There is a hierarchy. Elizabeth was more important than Margaret. Charles is more important than any of his siblings. William is more important than Harry. George is more important than his siblings. In each and every one of these cases that means the eldest gets perks the other(s) doesn't. That's just the way it goes.

Harry should have realized that and so should every other person out there.
  #1396  
Old 03-19-2021, 10:10 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 1,787
The Duke & Duchess of Sussex & Family - General News March 2021 -

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoySetsFire View Post
Is it any less nasty and vindictive as the BRF has been toward her by not correcting the false narrative that was put forth by the British press...

I understand many here are royalists... but as an American woman, I do not understand the need to vilify Meghan.


I’m an American woman. I frankly don’t like what I’ve seen publicly from Meghan in the last year and a half. I liked her at first. But- I’ve re- thought a lot of my initial positive impressions.


I don’t take Meghan’s word for anything. I have no reason to. She’s said things that are proven lies, twisted things around, she and Harry can’t tell coherent and consistent stories, etc. Besides- with my professional background- I’m not inclined to take “Meghan said....” as proof.

The BRF don’t correct the majority of stories out there. Meghan was not treated differently than Catherine, Camilla, Sophie, etc. She should have done what other very famous people do- and what she herself said she did and obviously didn’t do- ignored it and moved on. Besides- I’m not sure what’s true and what isn’t that got reported. But I sure won’t take Meghan’s word got it.

Put it this way- when I first heard- “what Meghan wants, Meghan gets” reported, I dismissed it. I didn’t buy it. But- it sounds plausible to me now.
  #1397  
Old 03-19-2021, 10:18 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 1,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
In American terms what you suggest actually would be akin to the President of the United States censoring or correcting everything he didn't like that came out that put one of his/her family members in a bad light. Or... forcing a member of Congress to resign his position because of rumors and allegations. Ain't gonna happen in this reality.



It's not about being a monarchist, a royalist, a republican or a vegetarian. It's about what one can and what one cannot do. Simple.


Great analogy. Thanks.
  #1398  
Old 03-19-2021, 10:31 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: san diego, United States
Posts: 9,209
Harry out and about riding an electric bike
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...interview.html
  #1399  
Old 03-19-2021, 10:36 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by polyesco View Post
Harry out and about riding an electric bike
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...interview.html
The man was born to be wild. Tackling California traffic on a bike.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #1400  
Old 03-19-2021, 11:27 PM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 565
Hmmmm... So, I'll be the first to observe that Harry is not wearing his mask correctly. What's the point if you're not going to cover up your nose? (I know a bunch of figure skating fans who would scream about how he was endangering the entire world if he was any of a number of well-known Russian skaters or coaches, but that's a topic for another forum, lol...)

With regard to Meghan and her request to "go somewhere" for mental health treatment being denied by "the Institution", you have to wonder how many people at BP/KP aren't looking back thinking "yeah, we should have let her go where she wanted, regardless of security/privacy concerns and let the media chips fall where they would have fallen." I'm sure, no matter how it played out, our Meghan would have found a way to twist and blame "the Institution" for it going badly or being leaked but at least she would have gotten the help she thought would be most beneficial, right?
__________________

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 2: December 2020-March 2021 JessRulz Current Events Archive 874 03-07-2021 08:05 PM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abu dhabi american american history ancestry baby names baptism british british royal family british royals brownbitcoinqueen camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house cpr customs dresses duke of sussex earl of snowdon edward vii family tree general news thread george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf hereditary grand duchess stéphanie history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs imperial household jacobite japan jewellery jewelry kensington palace king edward vii list of rulers luxembourg maxima meghan markle monarchy nepal nepalese royal family pless princess alexia (2005 -) princess chulabhorn princess chulabhorn walailak princess eugenie princess laurentien princess of orange princess ribha queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen victoria resusci anne royal jewels royalty of taiwan russian court dress spain sussex swedish queen thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:16 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×